shame on modern boxers

[El Kabong]

I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

....not even when you pass a mirror?

[Beanflicker]

I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

....not even when you pass a mirror?

lol, well played

[brocktonblockbust]

I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

....not even when you pass a mirror?

lol, well played

nope.

[Master]

There probably is less quality fighters now but the fighters that are the elite would have been able to handle themselves in the best eras.

[Sleepwalker]

I think public awareness has a lot to do with it. If the old timers were more aware and educated on the long-term effects of boxing, they would not have been engaging as much either. I doubt guys like Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano knew any boxers prior to them suffering from dementia due to their craft.

[brocktonblockbust]

I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

....not even when you pass a mirror?

nope.

[El Kabong]

I have never seen such such piss poor subpar lackluster b******* in my entire life.

....not even when you pass a mirror?

nope.

My apologies.....I wasn't aware that you are a vampire

[Beanflicker]

If you look at the best of one generation and compare it to the worst of another, of course that generation is going to look bad.

Some people say fighters were tougher back then. Bullshit. There were warriors in cowards back in the 1930s just like there are warriors and cowards now. There were great fights and boring fights back then like there are today.

The problem is boxing fans have a limited perspective. They look at the broad scope of boxing currently, but look at the highlights of boxing in the past. I've never heard any great arguments as to why boxers would have been better back in the day (if you say it's because "life was harder", you're an idiot).

If anything, with more advancements in nutrition, training knowledge and technology, athletes are better than they've ever been.

[Master]

If you look at the best of one generation and compare it to the worst of another, of course that generation is going to look bad.

Some people say fighters were tougher back then. Bullshit. There were warriors in cowards back in the 1930s just like there are warriors and cowards now. There were great fights and boring fights back then like there are today.

The problem is boxing fans have a limited perspective. They look at the broad scope of boxing currently, but look at the highlights of boxing in the past. I've never heard any great arguments as to why boxers would have been better back in the day (if you say it's because "life was harder", you're an idiot).

If anything, with more advancements in nutrition, training knowledge and technology, athletes are better than they've ever been.

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

[Beanflicker]

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Maybe boxing peaked. More than likely it's just our perception.

We say boxing peaked in the 70s because it was the era of Ali, but why was anyone else better than anyone else from any other era?

I'd love to hear from someone why exactly a Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, ect were any better than guys from today, but when I ask people for specifics people get silent all of a sudden because they don't have the answers.

[Sleepwalker]

you sound like max power now.

It is a fact that boxing peaked 1970's for heavyweights and 80's for the smaller fighters.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Maybe boxing peaked. More than likely it's just our perception.

We say boxing peaked in the 70s because it was the era of Ali, but why was anyone else better than anyone else from any other era?

I'd love to hear from someone why exactly a Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, ect were any better than guys from today, but when I ask people for specifics people get silent all of a sudden because they don't have the answers.

I don't see those guys being any better than the ilk of Michael Dokes, Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon, Carl The Tooth Williams, etc.... Marginal at best.

The 70s was a tough era, but realistically quite a few of those guys were not as great as people made them out to be yet their reputations were inflated because of the top fighters they faced.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

The problem is boxing fans have a limited perspective. They look at the broad scope of boxing currently, but look at the highlights of boxing in the past.

That’s a generalization. Some do, some don’t.

For the most part, my biggest concern is that some are lead to believe whatever they read (hyperbole) rather than what they actually see (in relation to what they’re actually looking for).

I've never heard any great arguments as to why boxers would have been better back in the day (if you say it's because "life was harder", you're an idiot).

Irony. Love it.
Boxing is a sport born out of struggle and so it’s fair to say that tough times make tough fighters. Mentally tough fighters I mean.

If anything, with more advancements in nutrition, training knowledge and technology, athletes are better than they've ever been.

Physically) Yes.

Tactically) Maybe, maybe not. There is a certain traceability* from generation to generation which can be built upon but there also things that are lost.

Mentally) No.

*credit to @NVSemin for the term 'tracebility', bro you need to expand on that thread you started ,I've been waiting!

[SugarBoxing]

ok soon in future

[Beanflicker]

Irony. Love it.

What was ironic about what I said?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Irony. Love it.

What was ironic about what I said?

Something to do with limited perspective.